Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Leibowitz v. State Farm Ins. Co.green1 sentence2025Co., 2016-Ohio-5690, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.) (“The doctrines of waiver and estoppel generally cannot expand the coverage of an insurance policy.”); Cincinnati Mental Health Inst. | 1 | 1 |
San Allen, Inc. v. Buehrergreen1 sentence2019Cuyahoga No. 99786, 2014-Ohio-2071, ¶89 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Gold Coast Realty, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appealsgreen1 sentence2007See Gold Coast Realty, Inc. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 37 , 39 , and Campbell v. Campbell (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 48 , 50 . | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2007See Gold Coast Realty, Inc. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 37 , 39 , and Campbell v. Campbell (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 48 , 50 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Turner Liquidating Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance
green
2 sentences2002"An insurer should not be able to avoid liability under all circumstances in which it voluntarily relinquishes a known right or induces another into changing his position based upon reliance on the insurer's conduct when the insured is prejudiced by such reliance." Turner Liquidating, supra, at 299 . 1997Id. | 2 | 1997–2002 |
Yarosh v. Becane
green
2 sentences1998Chubb relies on Yarosh v. Becane (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 5 , 17 O.O.3d 3 , 406 N.E.2d 1355 , as support for her proposition that the state is precluded from advancing an estoppel defense. 1998Chubb relies on Yarosh v. Becane (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 5 , 17 O.O.3d 3 , 406 N.E.2d 1355 , as support for her proposition that the state is precluded from advancing an estoppel defense. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
State ex rel. Chavis v. Sycamore City School District Board of Education
green
1 sentence2019Thus, “estoppel involves the conduct of both parties, whereas waiver depends upon what one intends to do.” Id. {¶ 72} In my opinion, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the doctrines of waiver and estoppel preclude appellant’s claim that the new sign violates the “single pole” restriction. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins
green
1 sentence2012Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 449 , 1996-Ohio-211 , 663 N.E.2d 639 . {¶23} As to Song’s waiver and estoppel argument, we note that in general, the doctrines of waiver and estoppel may not be used to expand insurance coverage. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins
green
2 sentences2012Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 449 , 1996-Ohio-211 , 663 N.E.2d 639 . {¶23} As to Song’s waiver and estoppel argument, we note that in general, the doctrines of waiver and estoppel may not be used to expand insurance coverage. 2012Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 449 , 1996-Ohio-211 , 663 N.E.2d 639 . {¶23} As to Song’s waiver and estoppel argument, we note that in general, the doctrines of waiver and estoppel may not be used to expand insurance coverage. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Motorists Mutual Insurance v. Trainor
green
1 sentence2010O.2d 402, 294 N.E.2d 874 . {¶ 17} Generally, the doctrines of waiver and estoppel may not be used to expand an insurance’s policy coverage. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Compuserve, Inc. v. Limbach
green
2 sentences2003Compuserve, Inc. v. Limbach (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 777, 782 , 639 N.E.2d 1227 . {¶ 13} AHP’s first argument asserts that the 1988 bankruptcy court order confirmed the plan of reorganization under which all assets of Robins I, including the NOL, would be transferred to Robins II, and that principles of res judicata, specifically the doctrine of collateral estoppel, should bar any attempt by the commissioner “from challenging the transfer of this asset.” {¶ 14} The term res judicata encompasses both the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. 2003Compuserve, Inc. v. Limbach (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 777, 782 , 639 N.E.2d 1227 . {¶ 13} AHP’s first argument asserts that the 1988 bankruptcy court order confirmed the plan of reorganization under which all assets of Robins I, including the NOL, would be transferred to Robins II, and that principles of res judicata, specifically the doctrine of collateral estoppel, should bar any attempt by the commissioner “from challenging the transfer of this asset.” {¶ 14} The term res judicata encompasses both the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
City of Columbus v. Triplett
green
1 sentence2002Columbus v. Triplett (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 239 , 243 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.